How will the WCML work when HS2 reaches Handsacre and no further ?.

[Peter Sarf]

....................................

It occurs to me that if HS2a (and b) is not going to happen until after NPR Yorkshire and NPR Cheshire then we need to start worrying about :-
How will the WCML work when HS2 reaches Handsacre and no further ?.
So I will start a new thread here.

 

[JamesT]

My very rough understanding is that HS2 as of phase 1 is that it is merely redirecting the long distance non stop down HS2 instead of the southern WCML, replacing the Pendolinos with the 895s. So effectively, North of Birmingham the WCML will work just the same as today.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Currently every freight train has a validated path between Colwich and Milford & Brocton (on the Down) so if everything's on time there should be no delays to passenger trains. Assuming trains off HS2 at Handsacre Junction simply replace existing WCML services, on paper at least there should be no capacity issue. Problems arise of course if there are more trains than the existing pattern, which seems likely to be the case. Diverting a few freights via the Coventry Corridor, Aston and the Grand Junction would merely transfer the problem to West Midlands pinch-points.

 

[The Planner]

Currently every freight train has a validated path between Colwich and Milford & Brocton (on the Down) so if everything's on time there should be no delays to passenger trains. Assuming trains off HS2 at Handsacre Junction simply replace existing WCML services, on paper at least there should be no capacity issue. Problems arise of course if there are more trains than the existing pattern, which seems likely to be the case. Diverting a few freights via the Coventry Corridor, Aston and the Grand Junction would merely transfer the problem to West Midlands pinch-points.

You will still end up flexing as HS2 arrives on the slows.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My very rough understanding is that HS2 as of phase 1 is that it is merely redirecting the long distance non stop down HS2 instead of the southern WCML, replacing the Pendolinos with the 895s. So effectively, North of Birmingham the WCML will work just the same as today.

Train length will be an issue.
HS2 trains are (unless the spec is changed) 200m, or 400m doubled up, and 200m is mostly too short for the capacity needed on the WCML.
The WCML is not generally sized for 400m trains, but there are platforms at Crewe (P6 towards London and P12 in both directions) which are longer than 400m.
Carlisle P4 is 390m so might be able to handle HS2 trains with a short extension.
Otherwise physical changes will be needed with resignalling which will be expensive.
There is currently no route from Crewe P6 (full length) or P12 towards Manchester.

HS2 400m trains could split in those locations into 2x200m to complete their journeys.
Splitting trains at Birmingham Interchange might also be possible to avoid WCML changes.
But all this seems inadequate for major flows like London-Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow, and splitting/joining long-distance trains is a fraught business at the best of times.
The best answer would be to revise some of the HS2 formations to form something like the 266m of the current 11-car Pendolinos.
Or upgrade the on-board signalling on the 390s for ETCS and allow them to operate on HS2.
The displaced 200m HS2 sets could then be deployed on classic lines that don't need longer trains.

 

[Manutd1999]

As others have pointed out, Handsacre alone won't do much to improve capacity to the north. It will however release a massive amount of capacity on the southern WCML, with no obvious plan as to how that capacity will be used....

I wonder if some sort of turnback facility could be built at Lichfield? That would allow a high (ish) frequency stopping service to run south and give Tanworth, Nuneaton, Rugby etc a noticeable benefit. Otherwise I fear we'll be limited to just a few extra services to Milton Keynes or maybe Northampton, with a lot of unused capacity between there and Handsacre.

 

[The Planner]

As others have pointed out, Handsacre alone won't do much to improve capacity to the north. It will however release a massive amount of capacity on the southern WCML, with no obvious plan as to how that capacity will be used....

It won't though as it runs out at Lichfield. Unless that is as far as you want to run that is it.

I wonder if some sort of turnback facility could be built at Lichfield? That would allow a high (ish) frequency stopping service to run south and give Tanworth, Nuneaton, Rugby etc a noticeable benefit. Otherwise I fear we'll be limited to just a few extra services to Milton Keynes or maybe Northampton, with a lot of unused capacity between there and Handsacre.

You can turn back now via Lichfield North Jn.

 

[London Trains]

Train length will be an issue.
HS2 trains are (unless the spec is changed) 200m, or 400m doubled up, and 200m is mostly too short for the capacity needed on the WCML.
The WCML is not generally sized for 400m trains, but there are platforms at Crewe (P6 towards London and P12 in both directions) which are longer than 400m.
Carlisle P4 is 390m so might be able to handle HS2 trains with a short extension.
Otherwise physical changes will be needed with resignalling which will be expensive.
There is currently no route from Crewe P6 (full length) or P12 towards Manchester.

HS2 400m trains could split in those locations into 2x200m to complete their journeys.
Splitting trains at Birmingham Interchange might also be possible to avoid WCML changes.
But all this seems inadequate for major flows like London-Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow, and splitting/joining long-distance trains is a fraught business at the best of times.
The best answer would be to revise some of the HS2 formations to form something like the 266m of the current 11-car Pendolinos.
Or upgrade the on-board signalling on the 390s for ETCS and allow them to operate on HS2.
The displaced 200m HS2 sets could then be deployed on classic lines that don't need longer trains.

To be honest I've always thought HS2 should use 300m fixed-formation units (12 coach x 25m) - that way you would only need short platform extensions at major stations and termini, and could use SDO on the back one or two coaches at other stations.

Birmingham services can run at 4tph, which offers the exact same capacity as 3tph x 400m units, and if/when Manchester is fully running on HS2/NPR infrastructure, it can also run at 4tph.

 

[Peter Sarf]

To be honest I've always thought HS2 should use 300m fixed-formation units (12 coach x 25m) - that way you would only need short platform extensions at major stations and termini, and could use SDO on the back one or two coaches at other stations.

Birmingham services can run at 4tph, which offers the exact same capacity as 3tph x 400m units, and if/when Manchester is fully running on HS2/NPR infrastructure, it can also run at 4tph.

Maybe that is inevitable. But 300m units would undermine the benefits of HS2 and mean extending further North would be put off until those new 300m trains had become life expired.

Better to have 400m trains for Birmingham and perhaps have the displaced 390s adapted for Manchester on HS2. Perhaps some more 807s et al to free up more 390s.

I can see it being pointed out by the uninformed (media) that this new fangled high speed line has been wasted on slower than possible trains. But at least it improved capacity......
Did I say capacity ?.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

There is currently no route from Crewe P6 (full length) or P12 towards Manchester.

You could split a 400m in P6, so the back 200m can use the Junction towards Manchester and the front 200m picks up the previous super fast's path (Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, and onwards to Glasgow Central).
And I think the same would work when joining.

Obviously there are performance risks with joining a train that has travelled 240 miles with one that's travelled 30, especially when you only have 1 platform it's possible to do in, and it's at a very busy interchange.

 

[London Trains]

Maybe that is inevitable. But 300m units would undermine the benefits of HS2 and mean extending further North would be put off until those new 300m trains had become life expired.

Better to have 400m trains for Birmingham and perhaps have the displaced 390s adapted for Manchester on HS2. Perhaps some more 807s et al to free up more 390s.

I can see it being pointed out by the uninformed (media) that this new fangled high speed line has been wasted on slower than possible trains. But at least it improved capacity......
Did I say capacity ?.

Why would it undermine the benefits of HS2? There would actually be more capacity to most places, as the majority of services were/are likely to be using 200m units or 400m ones splitting at Crewe, so 200m to their onward destinations. Birmingham would receive the same capacity as it is intended to, and so would Manchester when it is fully on dedicated infrastructure. The only way 400m makes sense is if HS2 was a closed system, but this will never be the case.

To be honest I've always thought splitting and joining high speed services was frankly a stupid idea, and one that undermines the whole point of HS2.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The only way 400m makes sense is if HS2 was a closed system, but this will never be the case.

Eventually there will be a 400m high speed line from London to Manchester.
It might not be ready in the late 2030s as originally planned, maybe 2040s or later, but it will be needed and will happen.

 

[London Trains]

Eventually there will be a 400m high speed line from London to Manchester.
It might not be ready in the late 2030s as originally planned, maybe 2040s or later, but it will be needed and will happen.

As I said in my previous post, running 4tph with 300m units provides the same amount of capacity as 3tph with 400m units (the intended plan) does. It also means you can reduce the costs of the new stations at Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, as NPR is (more than likely) not going to be using units longer than 300m.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

As I said in my previous post, running 4tph with 300m units provides the same amount of capacity as 3tph with 400m units (the intended plan) does. It also means you can reduce the costs of the new stations at Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, as NPR is (more than likely) not going to be using units longer than 300m.

Who's to say in 20 years we won't need 6tph of 400m.
Multiples of 200 are built in for HS2 now
We don't want a point in 30 years when we're all saying the stations at Manchester Airport and Piccadilly were only 300 metres and it was shortsighted to not have them 400 metres given the core of HS2 will be.

 

[Topological]

Why do the Manchester trains need to call at Crewe?

The fact there is not a platform that faces Manchester and can handle 400m trains is essentially irrelevant.

Probably, Manchester will be via Stoke anyway until something beyond Handsacre is built.

The biggest problem with Manchester is the platforms in Manchester. This is why they need to get the Manchester to a field near the airport line built.

 

[eldomtom2]

It won't though as it runs out at Lichfield. Unless that is as far as you want to run that is it.

I'd say there's definitely a case to be made for increasing LNWR/WMT frequency along the London-Birmingham corridor - many stations only receive 2tph. Squeezing in an extra 2tph to get all stations to a turn-up-and-go frequency would be very beneficial when it comes to raising ridership and modal shift.

 

[Manutd1999]

It won't though as it runs out at Lichfield. Unless that is as far as you want to run that is it.

That was my point - it would make sense to run new stopping services to Lichfield to make the most of the capacity.

I could imagine 2ph Manchester, 2ph Liverpool and 1ph Glasgow moving to HS2 once Handsacre opens.

The Chester service and 1ph Manchester via Crewe stay on the WCML and pick-up the stops between Lichfield and Crewe, freeing up 1x path north of Handsacre which is currently taken by the Crewe stopper.

The 5x spare paths south of Handsacre could be replaced by 4ph to Lichfield (2ph running via Northampton) and 1ph extra service to the north, either a new pax service or a freight path.

 

[The Planner]

I'd say there's definitely a case to be made for increasing LNWR/WMT frequency along the London-Birmingham corridor - many stations only receive 2tph. Squeezing in an extra 2tph to get all stations to a turn-up-and-go frequency would be very beneficial when it comes to raising ridership and modal shift.

I'd expect a return to a New St Cov all shacks pattern, whether that would then run onwards towards Euston is up for debate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

That was my point - it would make sense to run new stopping services to Lichfield to make the most of the capacity.

I could imagine 2ph Manchester, 2ph Liverpool and 1ph Glasgow moving to HS2 once Handsacre opens.

The Chester service and 1ph Manchester via Crewe stay on the WCML and pick-up the stops between Lichfield and Crewe, freeing up 1x path north of Handsacre which is currently taken by the Crewe stopper.

The 5x spare paths south of Handsacre could be replaced by 4ph to Lichfield (2ph running via Northampton) and 1ph extra service to the north, either a new pax service or a freight path.

The plan will put as many off HS2 through Colwich as possible as often discussed here. No way will it be as low as 5tph.

 

[cle]

There is 1tph that is retained via MKC and Stoke.

So the 5tph is probably right.

I think 4tph to Lichfield is probably a reach. Might just see 2tph Southern to Watford happen, and an extra 2tph to Rugby from what I recall. Maybe some more string service at peaks.

 

[The Planner]

There is 1tph that is retained via MKC and Stoke.

So the 5tph is probably right.

I think 4tph to Lichfield is probably a reach. Might just see 2tph Southern to Watford happen, and an extra 2tph to Rugby from what I recall. Maybe some more string service at peaks.

It will be more than 5. A return will be wanted as soon as its open, so you add as many trains in as you can.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Simplistically.

I suppose it will be as many existing intercity services as possible diverted at Handacre onto HS2.
The result will be howls of derision if 390s are plodding down the sexy new fast tracks.
Alternative is new trains - then howls of derision at the services now being made up of shorter but expensive new 200m trains, particularly for Manchester. Expect howls of derision that said 200m very fast have to crawl through the Manchester suburbs. Oh and "its not fair - why was Birmingham favoured"

Result is the only real gain for fast train passengers is extra and faster services between London and Birmingham.
Result is going to be more services for secondary stations on the WCML as far as Lichfeld - good but bad not reaching to somewhere logical like Stafford or Crewe.
Result everyone gives up and works from home or the push is finally there to GET IT DONE.

 

[fandroid]

There was a proposal to upgrade the class 390s to 140mph, which they were designed for. That would make use of the new tracks, but would also allow tilt to be used on the existing WCML beyond Preston. The timings to Glasgow then wouldn't be downgraded as they certainly would be using non-tilt trains without HS2 phase 2a.

The huge spanner in the works is the delayed completion time for HS2 London to Birmingham, also with all Handsacre work on hold. The 390s are likely to be life-expired by the time Handsacre is in use, so speculation about using them on HS2 has become almost pointless.

The magnitude of the HS2 cock-ups expands every time it's discussed.

 

[3RDGEN]

The 390s are likely to be life-expired by the time Handsacre is in use, so speculation about using them on HS2 has become almost pointless.

Spot on, by the late 2030's when HS2 to Handsacre may finally open the 390's will need replacing anyway. Best option now is to rework the HS2 fleet order with Alstom/Hitachi for longer formations for the HS2 domestic services which can then also replace the 390's from the late 2030's.

 

[jp4712]

As a resident of Lichfield, the thought of a 4 TPH service to London (mentioned above) when at the moment we only get 2 TPH to Birmingham is mind-boggling. That said a 4 TPH service to London would be very welcome, thank you.

As for a turn back at Lichfield North Junction, that’s not currently possible as it’s not possible to access the sidings from the Down Slow, and space constraints would make it very difficult to do so. You’d need to acquire land at the north end of the current sidings to create length to fit a ladder across the four lines, and if there were to be a train crossing the whole of those four tracks north of the station every fifteen minutes maybe that wouldn’t be ideal.

But if you’re going to spend all that money on HS2, a few more tens of millions is just small change…

 

[The Planner]

As for a turn back at Lichfield North Junction, that’s not currently possible as it’s not possible to access the sidings from the Down Slow, and space constraints would make it very difficult to do so. You’d need to acquire land at the north end of the current sidings to create length to fit a ladder across the four lines, and if there were to be a train crossing the whole of those four tracks north of the station every fifteen minutes maybe that wouldn’t be ideal.

But if you’re going to spend all that money on HS2, a few more tens of millions is just small change…

You can do it now. You can be signalled from the Down Slow onto the Down Fast behind a GPL that allows you back onto the Up Slow. You could even go up towards Curborough and do it as that wouldn't block the Down Fast for as long.

 

[cle]

It will be more than 5. A return will be wanted as soon as its open, so you add as many trains in as you can.

Which? We have 3tph Manchester, 2tph Liverpool, 1tph Glasgow, 1tph Chester.

Keeping one 'Pendo' to Manchester (which remains the MKC connection, via Stoke) - it would be 1 x Manc via each route, 2tph Liverpool and 1tph Glasgow?

What else is there? Sever the Euston-Brum-Scotland into a second Scotland (same path north of Crewe) - or a Curzon-Scotland instead?

Remove the fast TV service from via MKC/Weedon, and make it a HS2 service? It would miss Nuneaton and Tamworth. Maybe that becomes the 'Macclesfield' service?

A Curzon-Staffs-Manc local service, or a local 350-type service to Crewe maybe?


We also still have whatever is decided to serve Coventry on the WCML. So those services will likely run on to New St still (I remember a weird Nuneaton working though!) - so the Curzon services are net new, ostensibly. 3-4tph, but the 3tph New St of today are likely to remain, even if maybe only one is now fast to Coventry...

You can do it now. You can be signalled from the Down Slow onto the Down Fast behind a GPL that allows you back onto the Up Slow. You could even go up towards Curborough and do it as that wouldn't block the Down Fast for as long.

Doing that 2-4 times per hour doesn't sound ideal. It's not an easy place to terminate given the platform layout. Failing a rebuild, or a switching of fast/slow - it's probably not the best place for it.

 

[The Planner]

Which? We have 3tph Manchester, 2tph Liverpool, 1tph Glasgow, 1tph Chester.

Keeping one 'Pendo' to Manchester (which remains the MKC connection, via Stoke) - it would be 1 x Manc via each route, 2tph Liverpool and 1tph Glasgow?

What else is there? Sever the Euston-Brum-Scotland into a second Scotland (same path north of Crewe) - or a Curzon-Scotland instead?

Remove the fast TV service from via MKC/Weedon, and make it a HS2 service? It would miss Nuneaton and Tamworth. Maybe that becomes the 'Macclesfield' service?

A Curzon-Staffs-Manc local service, or a local 350-type service to Crewe maybe?


We also still have whatever is decided to serve Coventry on the WCML. So those services will likely run on to New St still (I remember a weird Nuneaton working though!) - so the Curzon services are net new, ostensibly. 3-4tph, but the 3tph New St of today are likely to remain, even if maybe only one is now fast to Coventry...

Lots of people are working on that, and have been for some time, and having to start again when Rishi canned 2A. Cov will probably get 2tph, stopping at Rugby, MK and Watford, it won't be 3 as it stops other opportunities along the Cov corridor.

Doing that 2-4 times per hour doesn't sound ideal. It's not an easy place to terminate given the platform layout. Failing a rebuild, or a switching of fast/slow - it's probably not the best place for it.

Why? Its easy and you could do it today if you wanted and had a gap. If the capacity is reduced north of there to Handsacre anyway the gaps on the fast will be much higher. Run up to Curborough and you just need the margin off the fasts.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'd expect a return to a New St Cov all shacks pattern, whether that would then run onwards towards Euston is up for debate.

For clarity, what precisely do you mean by this? Which services would be returning to this pattern?

 

[cle]

Lots of people are working on that, and have been for some time, and having to start again when Rishi canned 2A. Cov will probably get 2tph, stopping at Rugby, MK and Watford, it won't be 3 as it stops other opportunities along the Cov corridor.

This I agree with, especially if we are de-prioritizing International-London. Which is more of the Stalybridge/Rochdale terminus for west-facing starters. More local service would be very welcome, and maybe not having it all tied up with Northampton and the route to London.

 

[The Planner]

For clarity, what precisely do you mean by this? Which services would be returning to this pattern?

You would run a New St Cov all station stopper. Potentially even back to Wolves with Walsall and Rugeley being split off.